Okay Guys... I did a search and tried to read through most of the KRISS threads that showed up here on Calguns.
Looking at the KRISS mechanics, I wanted to get your opinions on the validity of the KRISS as a California Legal Firearm in unaltered original form. If you look at the California Laws, they state that a AW is:
A semiautomatic centerfire rifle capable of accepting detachable magazines and any of:
▪ a pistol grip protruding conspicuously below the weapon’s action

▪ a thumbhole stock or folding or telescopic stock;

▪ a flash suppressor, grenade launcher or flare launcher;

▪ a forward pistol grip.

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with overall length of less than 30 inches;

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine holding over 10 rounds.

Now that you have seen the KRISS action and how a user would sholder the weapon... Is that considered a Pistol Grip/Thumbhole/etc...?
If it is not a "Pistol Grip", then the KRISS would be in California compliance as long as there is no Flash Hider,no Collapsible/Foldiing Stock, no forward grip, and OAL is 30"+, Right??? My opinion is that the grip is above the actual action of the firearm.
Personally, while the looks have grown on me I'm still not a big fan. But, if it does take Glock mags, I have a lot of 33 rounders that I could use with it.

NSR500

02-15-2008, 11:35 AM

the guy at accusport said they were working on a fixed mag desighn for the cali guys

Hypothetically speaking... If it is not considered an AW with the type of grip it has, we would not need to lock the mag. Unless of course, you want evil features and are willing to give up detaching the magazine.

packnrat

02-15-2008, 11:53 AM

pistol grip = aw

but it is just fugly.

i would rather buy a svt 40,sks,ak, or a ljungman, hiakam, reshead, or most any mauser. thompson, grand, springfield (ww2 ver), ar. etc.:D

:TFH:

brass hounds rule:TFH:

.

aplinker

02-15-2008, 12:10 PM

That is definitely a pistol grip. What you quoted from the PC is insufficient to understand what a pistol grip is.
PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF
THE WEAPON” IS DEFINED BY 11 C.C.R. 5469(d).
11 C.C.R. 5469(d) expressly defines "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the
action of the weapon" for the purposes of Penal Code Section 12276.1:
The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant
to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(d) "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" means a
grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between
the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the
trigger while firing.

Because the web of the hand can only be beneath the top of the exposed portion of the trigger guard, that makes it a pistol grip. You could fill in the area between the PG and the stock. There's also the issue that the stock looks to be a folder, which is a feature, as well.

uzigalil

02-15-2008, 12:19 PM

I think a better project is to get Bushmaster and Magpul to make a gripless lower for the Masada/ACR rifle. Then we can real rifle .

sergeantrex

02-15-2008, 12:36 PM

Looks like the pistol grip is behind the action not beneath the action. Am I crazy?

Paratus et Vigilans

02-15-2008, 12:44 PM

The demo of it on Futureweapons showed it to have a FA mode also. Even if you can make the argument about the PG being above the action, what do you do about the NFA issue? Even on the pic you posted, the board behind it says it's a SMG.

As for looks, well . . . I don't really care for any of the blocky, lots of plastic, raygun looking things the gun manufacturers are coming out with. I want a gun that looks like a danged gun, not like a phaser! :D

NSR500

02-15-2008, 12:48 PM

To me the KRISS grip looks like it is above the action which nullifies C.C.R. 5469. Looking at the diagram, the magazine feed lips, barrel, and bolt are well below the trigger line.
The only area of dispute that I can see is the selector switch and part of the "Super V" system look like they are about the line.

NSR500

02-15-2008, 12:49 PM

The demo of it on Futureweapons showed it to have a FA mode also. Even if you can make the argument about the PG being above the action, what do you do about the NFA issue? Even on the pic you posted, the board behind it says it's a SMG.

As for looks, well . . . I don't really care for any of the blocky, lots of plastic, raygun looking things the gun manufacturers are coming out with. I want a gun that looks like a danged gun, not like a phaser! :D

They are making a Civilian version of the firearm that is not Full Auto.

uzigalil

02-15-2008, 12:51 PM

Of course they are, What military or LE is even interested ???

bohoki

03-06-2008, 6:18 PM

anybody know when and where i could order one of them +17 bottoms

yes i have pre-ban 13 round mags and have had my glock 21 since the 90s
(so contrary to popular belief they don't all go kaboom within the first year)

bohoki

03-06-2008, 6:20 PM

To me the KRISS grip looks like it is above the action which nullifies C.C.R. 5469. Looking at the diagram, the magazine feed lips, barrel, and bolt are well below the trigger line.
The only area of dispute that I can see is the selector switch and part of the "Super V" system look like they are about the line.

the trigger is the device you press with your index finger and it looks like you grasp it under the exposed upper section of it

of course if they could make it pinkie fired we might have something

onley11

03-06-2008, 9:58 PM

They are already working on a non folding, bb'd version for cali sales. They said so at the shot show and it is on their website also. The +17's are supposedly gonna be ready any second per the booth at shot. But he said they are also dealing with glock to licence the design. I finger loved the mag more than the damn kriss at the show and it appears very much to be a longer version of the arridondo two piece glock mag extensions. I too have legal 13 rounders and the kriss guys say that the new mag works great. The booth guys must have been getting nervious because as soon as I put their 30 round glock 21 mag back on the felt one of them snagged it and put it away.:)

saki302

03-07-2008, 4:00 AM

It may well be exempt based in the 1919A4 ruling- where the pistol grip is BEHIND the gun rather than below it.

On the Kriss, the PG appears to not portrude below the action at all, since thw weird cantilever action requires an oddly long downward bolt travel.

It's interesting, but doesnt really do anything a GLock 21 wouldn;t do already. Might be fun to shoot though..

-Dave

aplinker

03-07-2008, 9:52 AM

It may well be exempt based in the 1919A4 ruling- where the pistol grip is BEHIND the gun rather than below it.

I'm pretty sure the 1919 is exempt because it's not a rifle, not because the PG is behind it.

This gun makes no sense to me, unless you can use FA. That's definitely a PG.

saki302

03-07-2008, 11:56 AM

you are not reading the ruling close enough- does the pistol grip PORTRUDE CONSPICUOUSLY BELOW THE ACTION ? Being a PG may be irrelevant if it doesn't portrude based on the way the law is worded.

On the Kriss, I say no portrusion.

On the 1919- no one argued it wasn't a rifle 4-5 years ago, the 'not a rifle' argument only came up very recently with people nutty enough to argue an SBR 1919 is legal, or toy with a .50BMG M2. That argument still may not fly- it sure looks like a rifle to me in some configs (A6)- I wouldn't push it that far.

-Dave

aplinker

03-07-2008, 12:40 PM

And you haven't bothered to read the definition of a PG. That is a PG.

Iit really has nothing to do with the action, but the trigger guard:

PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF
THE WEAPON” IS DEFINED BY 11 C.C.R. 5469(d).
11 C.C.R. 5469(d) expressly defines "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the
action of the weapon" for the purposes of Penal Code Section 12276.1:
The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant
to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(d) "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" means a
grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between
the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the
trigger while firing.

you are not reading the ruling close enough- does the pistol grip PORTRUDE CONSPICUOUSLY BELOW THE ACTION ? Being a PG may be irrelevant if it doesn't portrude based on the way the law is worded.

On the Kriss, I say no portrusion.

On the 1919- no one argued it wasn't a rifle 4-5 years ago, the 'not a rifle' argument only came up very recently with people nutty enough to argue an SBR 1919 is legal, or toy with a .50BMG M2. That argument still may not fly- it sure looks like a rifle to me in some configs (A6)- I wouldn't push it that far.

-Dave

ohsmily

03-07-2008, 1:58 PM

you are not reading the ruling close enough- does the pistol grip PORTRUDE CONSPICUOUSLY BELOW THE ACTION ? Being a PG may be irrelevant if it doesn't portrude based on the way the law is worded.

On the Kriss, I say no portrusion.

It is you who needs to read closer.

First of all, it is PROtrusion/PROtrude

Second, read the definition that clarifies what the first statement "conspicuously protrudes below the action of the weapon" actually means:
(d) "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" means a
grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between
the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the
trigger while firing.

You can't ignore the section in bold. THAT is the definition. Is it possible to grip the KRISS in a way to satisfy that definition, yes --> pistol grip.

NSR500

03-07-2008, 2:23 PM

It is you who needs to read closer.

First of all, it is PROtrusion/PROtrude

Second, read the definition that clarifies what the first statement "conspicuously protrudes below the action of the weapon" actually means:

You can't ignore the section in bold. THAT is the definition. Is it possible to grip the KRISS in a way to satisfy that definition, yes --> pistol grip.

IMO... The Debate is, "Where the grip is in respect to the Action of the KRISS".

If you look at how the definition is worded, then:

Pistol Grip + Below Action = AW

Pistol Grip + Anywhere but below the Action = Non-AW??? :confused:

ohsmily

03-07-2008, 2:28 PM

IMO... The Debate is, "Where the grip is in respect to the Action of the KRISS".

If you look at how the definition is worded, then:

Pistol Grip + Below Action = AW

Pistol Grip + Anywhere but below the Action = Non-AW??? :confused:

No, I believe the question is "can you grip the gun in such a way that the web of the trigger hand between the thumb and index finger be placed below the top of the exposed trigger while firing." If yes, then it is a pistol grip.

NSR500

03-07-2008, 2:31 PM

No, I believe the question is "can you grip the gun in such a way that the web of the trigger hand between the thumb and index finger be placed below the top of the exposed trigger while firing." If yes, then it is a pistol grip.

Gotcha...

dragonbait1a

03-07-2008, 8:00 PM

What about the 1919 type grips? You can put the web of your hand below trigger but the grip is behind the action? If a 1919 with a shoulder stock is legal then it seems that the KRISS (since the action resides before the grip) should be legal too?

But I don't mind being wrong it'd explain why more guns don't have the grip behind the action (besides weight)

RGB

aplinker

03-07-2008, 9:07 PM

The 1919 comes down to not being a rifle (it has no stock), so the inclusion of a PG is moot as the SB23 AW definition begins with, "a semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine and any of the following features:"

What about the 1919 type grips? You can put the web of your hand below trigger but the grip is behind the action? If a 1919 with a shoulder stock is legal then it seems that the KRISS (since the action resides before the grip) should be legal too?

But I don't mind being wrong it'd explain why more guns don't have the grip behind the action (besides weight)

RGB

saki302

03-08-2008, 12:37 AM

I think he is referring to the 1919A6, which does in fact have a stock (and bipod).

IMO, it doesn't matter what the DOJ's interpretation is- the web of the hand garbage is in there to clarify the legality of gripless designs in ARs and AKs.
To me, it's pretty clear what the actual law says WITHOUT their clarification:
"pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon"
So if it does not protrude at all below the ACTION, it's not a CONSPICUOUSLY PROTRUDING pistol grip. Read carefully, the law does not ban pistol grips in and of themselves, ONLY conspicuously portruding ones. Yes, they worded it stupidly and left a loophole.
I believe the actual wording of SB23 does not include the web of the hand thing- that is the DOJ clarification added later. Yes, it's iffy, but so was Harrott's at first.

Does the AR15 PG protrude conspicuously below the action? Of course. does the Kriss? I say no- the action goes all the way to the bottom of the mag well, which is in-line with the bottom of the PG- in fact, it portrudes LESS than the 1919A4, and you CANNOT grip it with any part of your hand below the action (and have your hand still on the pistol grip)..

And if we are to use the 1919 is not a rifle argument- what if you put a 16" barrel on the Kriss, added a tripod mount (hole) in the bottom, and had no stock? Same as the 1919, no?

-Dave

aplinker

03-08-2008, 12:40 AM

The problem with your logic is that it violates the clear definition they give for a PG, which would make it an assault weapon. You can't pick and choose parts of penal code.

I think he is referring to the 1919A6, which does in fact have a stock (and bipod).

IMO, it doesn't matter what the DOJ's interpretation is- the web of the hand garbage is in there to clarify the legality of gripless designs in ARs and AKs.
To me, it's pretty clear what the actual law says WITHOUt their clarification:
"pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon"
So if it does not protrude, it's not a CONSPICUOUSLY PORTRUDING pistol grip. Read carefully, the law does not ban pistol grips in and of themselves, ONLY conspicuously portruding ones. Yes, they worded it stupidly and left a loophole.

Does the AR15 PG portrude conspicuously below the action? Of course. does the Kriss? I say no- the action goes all the way to the bottom of the mag well, which is in-line with the bottom of the PG.

-Dave

saki302

03-08-2008, 12:58 AM

But they did not ban any pistol grip, only a "conspicuously portruding pistol grip'. I am not picking or choosing anything- just taking the statement as a whole. It seems the only picking and choosing is going on when others assume ANY pistol grip is illegal. The law does NOT say that.
The DOJ does not have the authority to add to the law at their whim. Read the ACTUAL text of the law, then talk to me about picking and choosing.

The actual text of SB23 says nothing about web of the hand:

12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
1. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
2. A thumbhole stock.
3. A folding or telescoping stock.
4. A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
5. A flash suppressor.
6. A forward pistol grip.

You cannot read the text of (1) without acknowledging the statement which follows after pistol grip.

If you were hell-bent on the web-of-the-hand DOJ addition, the Kriss design's trigger can be EASILY moved downwards 1/2" also to achielve the cockeyed 1919 grip.

Everyone seems to have so easily forgotten the initial reason for the 1919A4's legality- it had NOTHING to do with not being a rifle- that's a recent argument to try and justify SBRs and .50BMGs. I should know, I was there for the original round. There should be a letter out there stating the legality of the 1919A4 PG, I remember seeing it a few years back- if you find it, you will see my point..

-Dave

PS- I can't find the DOJ 1919 letter for the life of me- but it was referenced in BWO's case, so it's out there.

Also, it appears PROTRUDE means exactly what I thought it means (portrude = late night brain fart spelling). 'Conspicuously's meaning is obvious. BENEATH clearly means UNDER. And the 'action of the weapon' is the receiver, or any part which is essential to the firearm's fuunction, correct? So now, read line 1 and tell me what it means to you.

But they did not ban any pistol grip, only a "conspicuously portruding pistol grip'. I am not picking or choosing anything- just taking the statement as a whole. It seems the only picking and choosing is going on when others assume ANY pistol grip is illegal. The law does NOT say that.
The DOJ does not have the authority to add to the law at their whim. Read the ACTUAL text of the law, then talk to me about picking and choosing.

The actual text of SB23 says nothing about web of the hand:

12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
1. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
2. A thumbhole stock.
3. A folding or telescoping stock.
4. A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
5. A flash suppressor.
6. A forward pistol grip.

You cannot read the text of (1) without acknowledging the statement which follows after pistol grip.

If you were hell-bent on the web-of-the-hand DOJ addition, the Kriss design's trigger can be EASILY moved downwards 1/2" also to achielve the cockeyed 1919 grip.

Everyone seems to have so easily forgotten the initial reason for the 1919A4's legality- it had NOTHING to do with not being a rifle- that's a recent argument to try and justify SBRs and .50BMGs. I should know, I was there for the original round. There should be a letter out there stating the legality of the 1919A4 PG, I remember seeing it a few years back- if you find it, you will see my point..

-Dave

What people fail to realize is that ""pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing" is not from some DOJ letter or interpretation.

That definition is from a DOJ promulgated regulation (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/chapter39.pdf) which means it has the force of law.

The 1919 original approval was because they said it did not allow for a "pistol style grasp." As I recall it had nothing to do with the below the action / web of the hand definition.

saki302

03-08-2008, 1:15 AM

If it's part of the actual regulation, why is the web-of-the-hand text not in the actual LEGAL text of SB23? The DOJ cannot interpret and issue corrections as they see fit, not legally anyways (See AR/AK series fiasco).

And as I said above, the trigger can be easily moved down 1/2" placing it clearly below the web of the hand.

That's all I have to say on this- you believe what you want.

What people fail to realize is that ""pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing" is not from some DOJ letter or interpretation.

That definition is from a DOJ promulgated regulation (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/chapter39.pdf) which means it has the force of law.

The 1919 original approval was because they said it was not a "pistol style grip." As I recall it had nothing to do with the web of the hand definition.

aplinker

03-08-2008, 1:28 AM

Moving the triggerguard down wouldn't change the fact that you could still hold the web of your hand beneath it.

I do understand your point - that you feel the definition, not being in the penal code, calls into question its enforceability. I, however, see that as a massive uphill battle. You would not only need to face an entrenched definition, but also then show how the KRISS doesn't fit the definition in the penal code (which it still does).

If it's part of the actual regulation, why is the web-of-the-hand text not in the actual LEGAL text of SB23? The DOJ cannot interpret and issue corrections as they see fit, not legally anyways (See AR/AK series fiasco).

And as I said above, the trigger can be easily moved down 1/2" placing it clearly below the web of the hand.

That's all I have to say on this- you believe what you want.

saki302

03-08-2008, 1:28 AM

BINGO!

Note the letter says nothing about web-of-the hand :D

Yes, I do agree about the uphill battle part :(

http://img476.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kalye7.jpg

-Dave

ohsmily

03-08-2008, 7:20 AM

If it's part of the actual regulation, why is the web-of-the-hand text not in the actual LEGAL text of SB23? The DOJ cannot interpret and issue corrections as they see fit, not legally anyways (See AR/AK series fiasco).
The "clarified" definition is law. Just because it isn't found directly in that section does not mean it isn't law. It is codified in the code of regulations. It is a codified definition NOT an underground regulation. This is like saying the definition of "detachable magazine" that we know and love and enables us to use the BB is not law and can't be relied on. You are misguided here. The text is codified in the C.C.R. just like this is:
"The DOJ defined the term detachable magazine in CCR 11 § 5469 as: “Detachable magazine” means
any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of
the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool."
It is the law and we rely on in for the bullet button. You can't pick and choose which part of the law to comply with.

And as I said above, the trigger can be easily moved down 1/2" placing it clearly below the web of the hand.

Gee, then just move the web of your hand down a 1/2" and !voila!, the web is below the top of the exposed trigger again.

That's all I have to say on this
phew.
you believe what you want.

I will believe what the law explicitly says. Do NOT import one of these guns without a magazine lock because it has a pistol grip.

saki302

03-08-2008, 8:18 AM

Gee, then just move the web of your hand down a 1/2" and !voila!, the web is below the top of the exposed trigger again.

If it were so easy, all 1919s would be illegal, esp. if the 'not a rifle' doesn't fly- and 'not a rifle' has not been proven in court yet.

You still did not address my point- the DOJ letter I posted above says nothing about trigger, web of hand AT ALL, just that the 1919 is legal because the PG is BEHIND the action, not below.

In fact, I can easily hold a MM grip where the web of my hand is below the trigger- just slide your hand down and.. you get the idea.

If it naturally rests with web of hand above trigger I think you are set, based on your interpretation of the law.

aplinker

03-08-2008, 10:47 AM

You still did not address my point- the DOJ letter I posted above says nothing about trigger, web of hand AT ALL, just that the 1919 is legal because the PG is BEHIND the action, not below.

Of course a DOJ letter is the end-all, be-all. :rolleyes:

We've never seen them change their minds or modify those! I don't get how you can accept a DOJ letter, but ignore a codification of law on the books. Your threshold for what you accept is just illogical.

I'm sorry, but because they gave an OK to the 1919 based on that it doesn't mean it works for everything. The 1919 A6, IMHO, has issues. I wouldn't suggest that someone build that configuration, even with the letter.

In fact, I can easily hold a MM grip where the web of my hand is below the trigger- just slide your hand down and.. you get the idea.

You're not understanding why the MMG isn't a pistol grip. It has nothing to do with the location of the web of the hand, but because it doesn't allow a PISTOL STYLE GRASP, therefore it doesn't matter where the web of the hand is.

If it naturally rests with web of hand above trigger I think you are set, based on your interpretation of the law.

No, absolutely not. Naturally is meaningless. The codification doesn't say, "Naturally rests above the magic line," but CAN BE FIRED WHEN THE WEB OF THE HAND IS BENEATH... It doesn't matter that you can hold it above the line and fire, but rather it's a PG because it's possible to hold it with a pistol style grasp BENEATH that line - no matter how awkward it may seem.

can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the
trigger while firing.

mymonkeyman

03-08-2008, 1:49 PM

If it's part of the actual regulation, why is the web-of-the-hand text not in the actual LEGAL text of SB23? The DOJ cannot interpret and issue corrections as they see fit, not legally anyways (See AR/AK series fiasco).

And as I said above, the trigger can be easily moved down 1/2" placing it clearly below the web of the hand.

That's all I have to say on this- you believe what you want.

I'm sorry but you don't understand how the modern administrative state works, but the DOJ can pass regulations interpreting statutes, just like any other administrative agency that is given rulemaking authority. DOJ has rulemaking authority under 12776.5(c): "(c) The Attorney General shall adopt those rules and regulations that may be necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent of this chapter."

Those regulations are as good as the statute, unless they fail certain administrative law criteria (like being arbitrary and capricious). Courts give tremendous deference to such regulations and I don't think it is okay to say you should break a statute but not the regulation on this board, as both are "law" and you are essentially encouraging people to break the law.

Lastly, it doesn't matter if the web of the finger can be above the top of the exposed trigger, what matters is if the web of the trigger can be below the top of the exposed trigger (i.e. a legal configuration must PREVENT the user from having a pistol style grip with the web of the finger below the trigger). The regulation reads :""pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing."

bohoki

03-09-2008, 7:50 PM

oh man i get what you are saying it doesnt protrude below the weapon kind of like this

http://www.montysminiguns.com/macside.GIF

of course i think they will make subsantially more money off the +17 floorplates i just hope they dont run more than about $30

ghostwong

06-01-2008, 9:09 AM

http://www.kriss-tdi.com/content/view/39/14/

bohoki

06-01-2008, 10:52 AM

http://www.kriss-tdi.com/content/view/39/14/

huh?

where are them there +17 bottoms at

bwiese

06-01-2008, 12:54 PM

I'm pretty sure the 1919 is exempt because it's not a rifle, not because the PG is behind it.

The DOJ approval letter singned by Rossi, however, focused on the PG issues and wholly avoided the "not a rifle" issue.